If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

The Muscle and Brawn Forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Muscle and Brawn community stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.

for example, that chart shows that we absorb 100% of soy protein but only 75% of the protein in black beans and 52% of the protein in peanuts. changes the way you read food labels.
that's just the chart on Wikipedia. you can find many other similar charts with different percentages, but the absorption rate from highest to lowest seems to be roughly constant.

to whose recommendation are you referring? lots of people give lots of different recommendations for protein intake. not all recommendations from all people are based on research. also, i don't trust every person's recommendation; i'm careful about who i listen to.

Quote:

almost exclusively based on studies where protein intake is measured as amount of protein in food eaten.

hence the legitimacy of taking digestability into account. if a person gives a recommended protein intake without considering how much of that protein is absorbed then no one -- not even the person giving the recommendation -- can even be sure how much protein you actually need or how much you use. if i consume 100 grams but only absorb 50 grams and someone recommends i consume 100 grams, then what does that even mean? it's a vague recommendation at best and nonsense at worst.

Quote:

There is no need to consider the digestability of your food as long as your sensible about your diet and eat somewhat varied. KISS, keep it short & simple.

yeah but different people have different definitions of "sensible." you might get enough protein eating "sensibly," but a vegan who doesn't eat much soy but still consumes a lot of protein might not actually benefit from very much of that protein.
how is looking at a digestability chart not keeping it simple lol? i think it's simple and helpful to make sure i get mostly high absorbing sources of protein. i don't look at it every day. i just know in the back of my head which sources are better for me than others. not much simpler than that.

hence the legitimacy of taking digestability into account. if a person gives a recommended protein intake without considering how much of that protein is absorbed then no one -- not even the person giving the recommendation -- can even be sure how much protein you actually need or how much you use. if i consume 100 grams but only absorb 50 grams and someone recommends i consume 100 grams, then what does that even mean? it's a vague recommendation at best and nonsense at worst.

Obviously I don't think you should listen to people who just make up recommendations, but there have been studies that have looked into the effects of protein on athletic performance and recovery, these studies found a connection between certain amounts of protein eaten and improved performance/recovery. What I mean to say is that these studies (the best studies we have on how much protein is required) only measured protein eaten and did not take into account absorbability or protein quality, yet they found that a certain point more protein is no longer better.

That being said, 90% of reports on this subject have actually reported protein recommendations far lower than what most people consume, which makes sense: why risk eating too little protein if you can just eat some extra to make sure you've eaten enough? This is why I do not think accounting for absorbability and protein quality is really needed, most people consume plenty even after taking into account the 'loss' (if you will call it that) of protein due to low PDCAA scores.

I 100% agree with you that 'sensible' is very subjective term, but I'd argue that for people who cannot eat 'sensibly' it'd be far more beneficial to learn a bit more about other aspects of nutrition than protein absorbability and quality. (edit: After reading my own post I thought I'd clarify that by 'sensibly' I do not in any way want to allocate judgement to the way people eat. All I mean by 'sensible' in this context is 'in a way beneficial to the goals that that person is trying to reach' which for us would be lifting weights.)

To sum it up: I don't think absorbability is something the majority of people should worry about since I don't think it is important for them. Obviously you all know yourselves better than I do and can assess for yourself if it is something you wish to consider when choosing foods. Just making a case for the people who want to keep it simple and just lift weights. Nutritional science is not for everyone.

What I mean to say is that these studies (the best studies we have on how much protein is required) only measured protein eaten and did not take into account absorbability or protein quality, yet they found that a certain point more protein is no longer better.

yes, you already said this. you don't understand the point i made before if you're repeating this.

Quote:

most people consume plenty even after taking into account the 'loss' (if you will call it that) of protein due to low PDCAA scores.

i don't believe this is necessarily the case.

Quote:

Nutritional science is not for everyone.

again, you pretty much said this already. and again, a list of protein sources that shows the most efficient sources is hardly "nutritional science." it doesn't require much thought or effort to just look at a brief list of foods.
by the way, you're the one who keeps referring to "most studies" and "90% of studies" while criticizing a protein chart as too scientific lol